Same one that decided "Brown v The Board of Education"
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Harrell Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 9:59 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Tribes? Ah yes, the Supreme "Court" the same one that believed in "separate but equal" and that declared the "American Indian Crimes Codes" legal that banned Indian Religions because they were land based and would not submit to having their "Jerusalem's" sold to the local "gold merchants." We were forbidden to teach our religion or pray in public until 1978 by U.S. law. Once the land was gone we were free to pray again but without our "Israel." That same Supreme Court that struck down a part of our religions even as late as 1994. What was it Whitehead said: the paradox is now fully established that utmost abstractions are the true weapons with which to control our thought of concrete fact. As for Ed's comments? What about your comments Ed about the Indian people in Canada and how it's sad but necessary that "history is passing them by" when David Bohm said that they spoke Quantum speech? (F. David Peat: "Lighting The Seventh Fire" Birch Lane Press, 1994, pg. 238) I remember a conversation with a Jewish scientist studying voice with me. We were talking Castaneda and how he believed Castaneda's books just couldn't be true. (Of course they aren't) I asked him why and he had the guts to say that "if it was true, what does that make us?" Since 1978 I have discovered much more radical and civilized workings by my ancestors than Castaneda even imagined with his fanciful stories. Like Goldhagen said, it's easy to create abstractions about something you don't know anything about. You've told me your background but do you speak those languages or did you draw your conclusions about them and their history from their descriptions in English? It wasn't until the Brazilian anthropologists began to speak the language of the Chingu people that they believed the huge cultures that had been lost and the science of Terra Preta. Surprisingly the gutting of the jungle that has been bad for global warming has revealed vast civilizations, great cultures lost as well as terrible assumptions by the conquerors descendants that are unscientific, illogical and downright murderous. At the same time, the new dam to feed the energy beast, promises to lose those cultures and their ways to the world forever. (How sad?) The problem is to unravel the mystery of atrocity by telling the truth. One side is never enough and one way to check yourself is to write a novel, a play or an opera about it and see if it makes sense. It took many books before the magnificent history titled "Conquest" by Hugh Thomas could give us a reasonable picture of Tenochtitlan. For twenty years our Keetoowah library had bought every book on that, published and most of it was half-baked and either romantic or scientific trash with incredible pictures to make up for the dearth of genuine knowledge. Then Thomas put them all together along with more research and came up with something that smacked of real human beings who did amazing things as well as bad things. Just like everyone else. And what it said about Cortes? Well, he was like the my scientist voice student. He worried about what it said about him, and he should as his tactics were the same as Genghis at Samarkand and both sides at the world treasure of Hue in 1968. The general critical reviews of Conquest which read like all of the other typical stories of the fall of Tenochtitlan convinces me that they didn't finish the book or their prejudice was so complete that they couldn't "get it." I won't quote it but I would recommend escaping the typical provinciality by beginning with the end of the book from chapter 33 to the end. Beginning at the first is like an urban renewal justification for the fire of London in reverse. Better still one should remember Pissarro and the loss of the incredible stone technologies that his "Cortes like" choices brought for simple Gold. He was gold standard kind of guy. But where does that bring us to the Holocaust? I would suggest that along with Ben Kiernan's "Blood and Soil" we end up at Hannah Arendt's meeting with Eichmann in 1968 and how disappointed she was with his ordinariness. Science and Economics both strive for scale and generic production for the purpose of profit of some sort. Arent's comment was to call Eichmann's sense of scale: "banal." But what is the abstract principle beneath the banality? It too is banal and believed both by millions of people of faith in both of the offspring religions of Judaism. Snip, snip, snip 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4790 - Release Date: 02/05/12
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
